UNDT RoP

The UNAT held that the UNDT erred in suggesting that it was the former staff member’s burden to provide evidence to support his assertion that his request for review had been pending before the Dispute Tribunal since July 2009 and to produce a record of his case having been transferred to it from the JDC in July 2009.

The UNAT further held that the Administration’s response, that his claim was closed due to his failure to pursue it for over 12 years, was neither an administrative decision, nor was it the Administration’s prerogative to make regarding the judicial proceeding. The...

The UNAT observed that the UNDT did not err in denying the staff member’s request for an oral hearing as the case record was “comprehensive” and there was “no irreconcilable dispute of facts between the parties.”

The UNAT held that the staff member’s placement on ALWP was justified, given that the staff member was provided with the names of the members of the fact-finding panel assigned to investigate her alleged misconduct, and that she was in a position to approve the consultancy contract of one of those members, which created a conflict of interest and a genuine risk of interference in the...

The UNAT held that the staff member knew all the relevant facts and was sufficiently made aware and properly notified of the contested decision by at least 18 May 2023 for the purpose of filing a timely request for management evaluation. However, the staff member did not file his request for management evaluation until 16 September 2023, which was beyond the 60 day time limit.

The UNAT observed that the subject line of the e-mail exchanges in August 2023 between the Administration and the staff member, were requests “to clarify” the basis of an administrative decision that had been taken...

The UNAT noted that ABD’s appeal was filed within 60 days of the Order’s issuance, but more than 30 days after that event. Given that under Article 7(1)(c) of the UNAT Statute, a party has 30 days to appeal an order, ABD was out of time to appeal against the impugned UNDT Order.

The UNAT dismissed the appeal as not receivable.

The UNAT held that the UNDT acted correctly by conducting a judicial review of the case.

It found that the UNDT properly assessed the credibility of the witnesses who testified before it and correctly relied on the credible testimony of Ms. V, who had no motive to lie, to conclude that it had been established by clear and convincing evidence that the former staff member had sexually harassed her by making comments of a sexual nature in May and December 2020. While Ms. V’s testimony alone would have been sufficient in this context, the UNAT noted that it was corroborated by colleagues who were...

In this case, the Management Advice and Evaluation Section had already issued a response to the Applicant’s 22 December 2023 request for management evaluation.

There was no management evaluation pending and, consequently, one of the mandatory requirements for the examination of applications for suspension of action was not met.

In view of the foregoing, the application for suspension of action pending management evaluation was dismissed as not receivable.

The Court held that the application was not admissible because none of the elements that justified a stay of action were present.

The Court held that the administrative measure was moot and inadmissible because the contested administrative measure had been explained and an additional step had been taken to eliminate any possibility of prejudice to the appeal.

1. The Tribunal noted that in sec. VI of his application form, the Applicant declared that he did not request management evaluation. Indeed, he did not file a copy of his management evaluation request with his application. The record showed that the Applicant was yet to request management evaluation of the decision he sought to have suspended.

2. The Tribunal recalled that applications filed pursuant to arts. 2.2 of the UNDT Statute and 13.1 of the Rules of Procedure must be predicated on a pending management evaluation. Consequently, since the Applicant had not requested...

1. The Tribunal noted that the Applicant had previously raised the same issue before both the Dispute Tribunal (Fultang UNDT/2022/102) and the Appeals Tribunal (Fultang UNAT-2023-1403). The Dispute Tribunal had found the documents in question admissible. The Appeals Tribunal affirmed this finding.

2. The Tribunal, therefore, held that since the issue had been fully litigated by the parties previously, it was subject to the doctrine of res judicata. Thus, the subject documents were deemed admissible in the proceedings.

3. The Tribunal further concluded that even if...

The Tribunal agreed with the Respondent that the Applicant must comply with the requirements for filing an application set forth in paras. 5, 6, 22 and 23 of Practice Direction No. 4 with respect to the number of pages and content of Annexes in an application form.

The Applicant failed to comply with these provisions. Specifically, the Applicant filed, as an annex, 10 pages of arguments and facts beyond those set forth in the application form.

The Applicant was directed to file an amended application which was in compliance with paras. 5, 6, 22 and 23 of Practice Direction No. 4.